THE 0 LOG I CAL JOURNAL

Transcription

1 PRO T EST ANT REF 0 R M E D THE 0 LOG CAL JOURNAL Phis Joupnal is published and distibuted in limited quantities at no 'ohage, by the Theological SchooZ of the Potestant Refomed Chuches. ntepested pesons desiing to have thei names on the mailing list should addess the Edito, Ppof. H. Hanko, at the addess of the school, 1145 Fanklin Steet, S.E., Gpand Rapid8 Michigan ' l Decembe"1971 THEOLOGCAL SCHOOL of the PROTESTANT REFORMED CHURCHES Gand Rapids, Michigan Volume V, Numbe 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Old and New Man in Sciptue l Pof. H. Hanko As To The Doctine of Holy Sciptue (5) Pof. H. C. Hoeksema t

3 THE 0 L DAN D N E'W MAN NS C RP T U R E --Pof. H. Hanko-- Thee is evidence that a new inteest has appeaed among consevative scholas concening the question of the state of the egeneated child of God who lives in this life and is, theefoe, not yet made pefect in gloy. The question has seveal aspects to it, all of which ae closely elated. One such aspect is the question of what Sciptue means by the concepts ;'old man" and fnew manti; and closely elated to this, is it possible to speak of the egeneated child of God as still possessing an old man--with the esult that he is both an "old manti and a linew man H Anothe aspect to the question is the meaning of sanctification as this wok of gace is wought in the heats and lives of the people of God. To what extent is the egeneated child of God sanctified? s sanctification pogessive? Can the child of God expect to attain pefection on this side of the gave? Can he expect, if not pefection, at least consistent and geneal gowth in the life of sanctification? Still a thid aspect of this poblem is the coect view which a child of God must take of himself. Must he conside himself as a sinne o a saint? d, pehaps, as a sinning saint? o a saintly sinne? Two aticles especially hve bought these questions to the foegound. One aticle appeaed in a ecent issue of The Banne of Tuth and was witten by Donald MacLeod. t is entitled, f1paul's Use of the Tem 'The Old man'''. The othe is a two-aticle essay witten by Anthony Hoekema which appeaed in the Septenbe and Octobe issues of The Refomed Jounal unde the title lpthe Chistian's Self-mage Ti t is ou pupose to eview these aticles, conside the textual poof fo the position which these aticles take, and evaluate the whole question in the light of the Wod of God. '4': * *..'... Donald MacLeod has witten a vey excellent aticle. n geneal, find myself in agl'eement with the aticle, especially with the stong emphasis on soveeign gace which chaacteizes so many of the aticles which appea in The Banne of Tuth magazine. t is not eally my pupose theefoe, to citicize. _ - 1 -

4 !. this aticle as such. The autho makes a wothwhile and notable contibution to the discussion of sanctification which is wothy of close attention. And it is hoped that this pesent aticle will be a contibution to a discussion of this most impotant point. MacLeod's main thesis is that the taditional concept of Paul's tem lithe old manti is incoect. He defines this taditional view by stating that usually, in Refomed cicles, "the contast between the old man and the new manti is defined "in tems of the conflict between the believe's coupt natue and his holy natue ti And he finds thee elements emphasized in this idea. (1) the old man is to be equated with indwelling sin; (2) the old man emains in the believe; (3) putting off o cucifying the old man is a lifelong pocess equatable with the Chistian duty of motification. (p. 13.) This idea, the autho maintains is contay to Sciptue. Although it is bette not to go into this matte at this point, conside the definition of the "old man" offeed above (tlindwelling sin") to be somewhat inadequate. And pehaps this is pat of the difficulty in this matte. t may be tue that some theologians have limited the concept "old man" to lindwelling sin") but thee ae othes who give consideably moe content to this tem than that. (Cf., e.g., Refomed Dogmatics, by H. Hoeksema, pp ) Howeve that may be, (and we shall look moe closely at this question in a subsequent aticle), the autho offes as poof fo his contention a discussion of thee Sciptual passages--the only thee passages whee the tem "old man" is to be found. The fist passage is Colossians 3: 9: "Lie not one to anothe, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. : The point which is made is that the putting off of the old man is descibed as a wok once and fo all pefomed. t is not something which must be continually done. The tense of the veb is aoist, and the action descibed by this aoist tense is a once-in-a-lifetime deed. This fact, the autho says, is - 2 -

5 L bolsteed by the context whee Paul speaks of the fact that the believe is dead (vs. 3) and is also isen with Chist (vs. 1). So the autho concludes: Hence, we can maintain that we ae daily cucifying the old man only if we ae pepaed to maintain also that daily and houly we ae ising with Chist; and that ou emegence with Him into new-ness of life is not a once-fo-all event but a continuous and gadual pocess. Apat fom evey othe consideation this also foundes on Paul's tense nyou aose with Chist. We have, then) the desciption of the Chistian man as one whose pesent life is detemined by thee geat past events: He died, He put off the old man and He ose with Chist. (p. 14.) The autho finds the same tuth taught in Romans 6: 6 whee Paul speaks of the fact that ou old man has been cucified with Chist. Once again it is pointed out that the aoist tense is used and that the whole context suppots the contention that the old man is at one moment foeve destoyed. Ou being baptized into Chist's death, ou being planted into the likeness of His death, ou having died with Chist--all these descibe the fact lithat at some point in the believe's past life thee occued a definite and unepeatable event which adically alteed his elation to sin. i (p. 14.) The thid passage whee the tem "the old manti is used is Ephesians 4: 20. The aticle points out that thee is a difficuty hee because the Geek wods liput off H and "put on" ae infinitives. He suggests. thee possible uses of these infinitives. The fist use is that of giving these infinitives impeative foce. But, while this is gammatically possible, the autho suggests that they can also be infinitives of esult o infinitives in a noun clause. f they ae infinitives of esult, then the idea is that the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man is the esult of leaning Chist, of having head Him and of having been taught by Him. (Cf. vss. 20, 21.) f they ae infinitives in a noun clause then the idea is that these two infinitives tell us what we have head and leaned when we head and leaned Chist, and hat we have been taught by Him

6 L Beaing all this in mind the autho decides on the meaning 'by compaing this passage with and explaining this passage in the light of Romans 6: 6 and Colossians 3: 9. He insists that this passage must be intepeted in the same way as the othes. And thee is, in his view, additional poof fo this in the fact that the designation of the Hold manu given in vss. 17 and 18 and 22 of this chapte cannot possibly be descions of the egeneated Chistian. His conclusion is theefoe, that Hit is incoect to speak of the old man as emaining in the believe." (p. 15.) This latte intepetation is difficult to accept. The autho does not offe any exegesis of the passage as such, but athe simply states that the passage must be explained in the same way as the two passages of Romans 6 :6 and Colossians 3: 9. t seems, howeve, that egadless of what use one gives to the infinitives, the text states that the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man is something which happens to the believe as believe; and, theefoe, happens moe than once. A close look at this passage is theefoe, necessay. But we shall save this fo the second pat of this essay. n the autho's opinion, howeve, all this is not simply a fine point of Dogmatics; it is a vey impotant point as fa as the life and calling of the believe is coilcened. The old man is not to be equated with indwelling sin. Even though some may appeal to expeience in suppot of thei contention that they still possess this old man, this is an unwqanted appeal because expeience may neve contadict the Sciptues. t is tue that sin emains in the egeneated believe, but this stuggle in the life of the believe is not a conflict between the old and new man; it is athe a conflict between the flesh and the Spiit (Gal. 5: 17), between "me and sin tha-:: dwelleth in me f, (Rom. 7: 20), between the law of the mind and the law of the membes (Rom. 7: 23). The contast theefoe, between the old man and the new man is between the past and the pesent, between what a man was pio to his egeneation end what he is now as a egeneated saint. Although this too, we shall etun to at a futue time, it is inteesting to note that an impotant question aises hee. The autho seems to suggest in the foegoing that the once-fo-all

7 l L \.. putting off of the old man is something which takes place at the moment of egeneation. f this is tue, then one wondes how it is possib1e fo the apostle Paul to say in Colossians 3: 9, 10 that the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man is something which we have done--. seeing l.!:.. have put off the old man... and have put on the new man... Yi The only possible altenative seems to be to intepet egeneation in some Aminian sense--something which not want to do. am sue the autho does Thee ae howeve, pactical consequences of the position which the autho takes. The believe cannot blame the old man fo his sin. This has, in the autho's opinion (and he is coect) often become an t1antinomian convenience f to escape a pesonal esponsibility fo sin. t is not the old man who sins, an old man fo which the believe is not eponsible, but is athe the new man that sins. Hence, sin is a monstous thing, fo sin is committed in union with Chist. Once again, we may inset at this point the question: s it eally possible fo the new man, bon in egeneation, to sin? What about what the apostle John says in John 3 9: "Whosoeve is bon of God doth not commit sin; fo his seed emaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is bon of God. t s this not doing despite to the wok of egeneation? to claim that the new man, bon of God in egeneation, still sins? Tuning positively to the idea of the new man, the autho descibes this new man as the child of God who is isen with Chist, who has undegone a tansfomation which can be equated with"the esuection of Chist fom the dead. He is a man with the life of God in his soul who lives in constant union with Chist. Thee ae, says the autho, two impotant conclusions to this position. The fist is that sanctification is definitive. By this he means that sin ages in the believe, but it does not eign in him. The tyanny of Satan has been destoyed. And the second is that sanctification is efficacious and iesistible. God has taken ou sanctification out of ou hands and has put it in His own hand to wok this wonde by soveeign gace. Holiness is something povided fo fom the fist in God's edemptive plan fo each - 5 -

8 t-' L l l { { i ( We individual object of is gace. He does not meely exhot us to be holy no meely facilitate ou sanctification, no yet meely make some effot to secue it. t is His deteminate pupose to sanctify each one embaced by His love. This monegistic emphasis on the divine supenatualness and consequent inevitableness of sanctification is seen, fo example, in John 17: 17, ; Sanctify (thou) them though thy tuth.! ndeed) it pevades the New Testament.... n sanctification, no less than in egeneation, gace is iesi3tible o invincible. n the last analysis God has taken ou sanctification out of ou own hands and has Himself taken effective steps to make it infallibly sue that we shall be not only called and justified but also gloified... (p. 18.) ae in complete ageement with the autho's two contentions which he makes as conclusions to his well-witten aticle. And, in fact, we find it delightful not only to find one who is inteested in these tuths of Sciptue, but who emphasizes so stongly the doctines of soveeign gace. We ae also convinced that the autho's assetion that the "old manti has sometimes been used as an antinomian convenience to dodge the esponsibilities of sin is coect. Histoically this has, on occasion, happened. And it is not unco1n today. But whethe all this is a diect and necessay conclusion fom the autho's exegetical aguments is anothe question. it tue that Sciptue teaches that the believe no longe possesses an "old manti? And must one deny the pesence of this old man in the believe in ode to maintain the doctine of the iesistibility of gace in the wok of sanctification?--which the autho seems to suggest? O does the autho's position and intepetation of Sciptue ceate othe poblems which ae just as seious? Will a soof which poblems we have aleady indicated. caeful study of the Sciptual passages efeed to pemit this intepetation? conside. These ae questions which we hope to s

9 L Befoe we ente into a discussion of these mattes howeve, we must make efeence to anothe essay which has ecently appeaed in the Septembe and Octobe issues of the Refomed Jounal. This essay teats :the same basic question (and many of the same passages) unde the title, 1/The Chistian's Self-mage." t is authoed by D. Anthony Hoekema who is pofesso of theology in Calvin Theological Seminay. D. Hoekema is concened about the fact that the Chistian has the wong kind of self-image. And this essay is witten in an eanest effot to make coections at this key point. He is convinced that the Chistian has, geneally speaking, too owan estimate of himself fom a spiitual point of view; and that, if he would but face the -Sciptue's desciption of himself, he would modify this ovely low appaisal significantly. He wites: t is my conviction that the image we in the Refomed community commonly have of ouselves is fa moe negative than the Sciptues waant. My main pupose in these aticles is to expose the inadequacy of ou negative self-images and to show that faith in the victoy won by Chist and in tansfoming powe of the Holy Spiit equies of us the cultivation of a positive self-image. The fact of ou continuing sinfulness must not be pemitted to eclipse the equally impotant and fa moe exciting fact of ou newness in Chist! (Sept., p. 23.) Afte a few passing emaks concening the elation of this poblem to vaious social ills of the day, paticulaly, the ace poblem, the autho tuns to the matte at hand. He makes the distinction between abhoing ou sins and loathing ou continuing sinfulness on the one hand and abhoing ouselves and loathing ouselves on the othe hand. A discussion of Paul's self-image will show that while Paul (and we should follow his example) condoned the fome, he condemned the latte. He finds, afte examining vaious passages, that Paul's self-image was one in which Paul saw himself as a sinne indeed, but that he possessed a vey Hpositive self-image" nonetheless; so much so in fact, that - 7 -

10 t he does not hesitate to call the chuch to be imitatos of him. To call the saints to be imitatos of him equies that the apostle thought his life wothy of emulation. t is howeve, to what D. Hoekema calls tthee exegetical poblems li that we tun afte only a cusoy notice of a lage pat of this fist aticle. And we hasten to this section because it is hee that the autho comes to the eal heat of his agument. He calls attention, fist of all to that well-known passage in Romans 7: This is paticulaly inteeting because he tells us in his discussion of this passage that he changed his mind concening its intepetation. Thee was a time when he held to the view that this passage spoke of the egeneated Paul (and theefoe, of evey egeneated child of God). But, so he infoms his eades, he has changed his mind on this matte, in pat because of the convincing aguments of D. Heman Riddebos in his book entitled Paulus. He now holds to the view that, while Paul wote this section afte his egeneation, he was descibing himself as he was pio to his egeneation. Pehaps it is well to have the passage befoe us. t eads: Fo we know that the law is spiitual: but am canal, sold unde sin. Fo that which do allow not: fo what would, that do not; but what hate, that do. f then do that which would not, consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no moe that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Fo know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: fo to will is pesent with me; but how to pefom that which is good find not. Fo the good that would do not: but the evil which would not, that do. Now if do that would not, it is no moe that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. find then a law, that, when would do good, evil is pesent with me. Fo delight in the law of God afte the inwad man: But see anothe law in my membes, waing against the law of my mind, and binging me into - 8 -

11 (, f!!"t l captivity to the law of sin which is in my membes. o wetched man that am! Who shall delive me fom the body of this death? thank God though Jesus Chist ou Lod. So then with the mind myself seve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. t is obvious, of couse, that if this passage efes to the egeneated, Paul (and to the egeneated Chistian), it does not pesent a vey pleasing and attactive '1 self-image tf What distubs us, howeve, is that the D. does not point out to his eades that the intepetation which he now offes as the coect one (that this efes to Paul pio to his egeneation) is not a new idea, but, in fact, a vey old one. As a matte of fact it was, while peaching on the book of Romans and on this passage in paticula, in his congegation in Amstedam that Jacobus Aminius fist bought suspicion on himself fo teaching views which wee not Refomed. When he peached on this passage he, aleady, intepeted this as efeing to the natual man apat fom gace. was Plancius, his fellow ministe in the congegation who fist called attention to his eoneous views. But it was fom this point in the caee of Aminius that he began to develop extensively his Aminian theology which was so focibly condemned by the Synod of Dot. f D. Hoekema wants to adopt an intepetation poposed by Aninius, he has, of couse, evey ight to do this. But he should acquaint his eades with this note fom histoy, if fo no othe eason than to assue his eades that he is not following in the footsteps of the heetic condemned by the Geat Synod. (Fo this histoical note, cf. Wagenaa, "Van Stijd en Ovewinning t, G.J.A.Ruys, Utecht, 1909; pp. 33 ff. Cf. also Hoeksema i:refomed Dogmatics, Refomed Fee Publishing Association, p Concening this intepetation, Rev. Hoeksema wites: "t is well known, indeed, that many deny that the apostle Paul speaks of himself hee as a Chistian. t is also notewothy that in geneal it is those that ty to defend the fee will.of man and deny the total depavity of the natual man who want to apply what the apostle wites hee to the natual man, the unegeneated. Men like Pelagius and Easmus, Socinus and Aminius, Episcopius and Gotius, and the Remonstants in geneal have a:illys attempted to explain this passage as efeing to the apostle befoe his convesion. H) t

12 , L t is easy to see why one who makes this passage efe to Paul in his unegeneate state falls into the eo of Aminianism. The passage vey focibly states that Paul willed the good--even if he did not do it. Can this statement be made of an unegeneate man? Befoe we get into a detailed discussion of this passage, if such should pove necessay, we ought to take a look at D. Hoekema's easons fo changing his mind and accepting the intepetation that he adopts. At the isk of ove-simplifying the matte, we shall only summaize his aguments. n the fist place, he assets that Paul, in this lengthy passage, is elaboating on what the apostle says in 7: 5: "Fo when we wee in the flesh, the motions of sins, which wee by the law, did wok in ou membes to bing foth fuit unto death." The autho contends in this vese the apostle is speaking of his condition pio to egeneation; hence, if vss ae a futhe elucidation of vs. 5, this passage also must speak of Paul befoe he was egeneated. Secondly, the autho points to the fact that thee is no mention made in this entie passage of the Holy Spiit. Thidly, the autho senses a mood of defeat in this passage, a mood which is at vaiance with Paul's othe witings whee he descibes the Chistian's life. Fouthly, he calls attention to the wods " myself" in vs. 25 and intepets these emphatic wods as efeing to Paul as he tied to live out of his own stength and not out of the stength of Chist--a situation chaacteistic of Paul's life only befoe his egeneation. Fifthly, attention is called to lithe abupt change of mood" between this passage and the victoious doxologies of the apostle in chapte 8. This change of mood is possible because it descibes two diffeent conditions: unegeneate and egeneate. And finally, the contention is made that Romans 8:4 contadicts flatly the assetions of Romans 7: if this latte passage efes to Paul afte his egeneation. And such contadiction will neve do. The conclusion is theefoe:

13 l, What we have... in Romans 7: is a vivid desciption of the inability of a peson to seve God in his own stength with only the law to help him. (Sept., p. 27.) Rev. Hoeksema howeve, in suppot of the view that this passage efes to Paul in his egeneated state, wites: (The attempt of Pelagians and Aminians to intepet this passage as efeing to the natual man) is vain and impossible. n the fist place, such an explanation of the passage cetainly does not fit in the context of the chapte, no in the peceding and following context of the entie lette. n the second place, such an intepetation cetainly bings us in diect conflict with the doctine of Sciptue in geneal, which cetainly denies that the natual man has a delight in the law of God that he hates sin, and that he seves with his mind the law of God. The natual mind is enmity against God, and it is not subject to the law of God, neithe indeed can be. t cetainly does not consent to the law of God, that it is good. n the thid place, it is tue that the apostle in this passage cetainly employs some vey stong expessions when he speaks of himself as canal and sold unde sin. But in the light of the context these expessions evidently efe to his membes, to the old man of sin that is still within him, while accoding to the inne man he has a delight in the law of God. And undestood in this light, thee is nothing in these expessions that also in othe places in Sciptue is not clealy taught, no anything that evey child of God that knows himself cannot take upon his lips. (Hoeksema, Ope cit., p. 534.) The second passage commented upon is John 3: 9 which eads: "Whosoeve is bon of God doth not commit sin; fo his seed emaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is bon of God."

14 \'" l o n commenting upon this passage, D. Hoekema points out that suely this passage must not be so constued that it teaches that the believe no longe sins at all. This would be in diect conflict with John 2:1 along with 1: 8,9. Thee can hadly be any disageement on this point. But what does the text mean positively? The answe is given that "the egeneate peson mayan occasion fall into sin, but he cannot live in sin." (Sept., p. 28.) He quotes with favo a comment of Kenneth Wuest: lijohn egads sin in the believe'o life, not as habitual, but as extaodinay, as infequent." (Sept., p. 28). How is this intepetation aived at? The autho fist of all, points to the fact that the text itself uses pesent tenses which descibe continuous action o habitual action. That is, the kind of sin in the believe which he continues to commit fom time to time is not continuous o habitual sin. Secondly, this stands in contast with chapte 2: 1 whee the aoist tenses ae used to descibe the kind of sin which the believe does commit. And the aoist in Geek is the tense used to descibe "snaphhot action, punctilia action, momentay action. " (Sept., p. 27.) Thus sin in the believe is not to be consideed as something common o even likely; it is not to be expected in his life as a matte of couse. This is defeatist language and is an impope self-image. The fist question which comes to mind, quite natually, is how D. Hoekema would explain the wods of the Heidelbeg Catechism in question and answe 114: But can those who ae conveted to God pefectly keep these commandments? No; but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincee esolution they begin to live, not only accoding to some, but all the commandments of God. O, again, in question and answe 62: But why cannot ou good woks be the whole o pat of ou ighteousness befoe God?

15 . Because that the ighteousness, which can be appoved of befoe the tibunal of God, must be absolutely pefect, and in all espects confomable to the divine law; and also, that best woks in this life ae all impefect and defiled with sin. (Undescoing in both instances is us.) Futhemoe, the language of D. Hoekema comes peilously close to pefectionism; fo the pefectionists do not claim that a believe always and actually does attain pefection, but they insist that the believe can attain pefection. f sin is little moe than D. Hoekema descibes it, the conclusion seems to be that the believe stands on the edge of pefection and that, with a little moe effot, he can attain this goal. But pefectionism is not simply a theological eo; it is also a spiitual eo. t must do one of two things--and pehaps both. t must take a vey supeficial view of sin--especially as sin is ooted in man's natue; o it must make the nom of the believe's life much lowe than the Sciptues do. This is ". conducive to filling the heat and the mind of the child of God with doubts and distesses, especially when he sees in his own life that thee is vey much sin--that his best woks ae polluted and defiled by sin. One othe exegetical question is faced in this aticle. is not eally so much the facing of a specific text and its meaning. t is athe the quotation of Philippians 3: 7,8 in connection with its context as poof that the victoy ove sin has been won although the battle emains. Jesus Chist has come, add theefoe the decisive victoy ove sin, the devil, and the flesh has been won.... Though the enemy has been decisively defeated, thee emain pockets of esistance, thee ae still gueilla toops to be defeated, thee ae still battles to be fought. n one sense we aleady possess salvation; in anothe sense we still look fowad to ou salvation. We aleady have the new life; we no not yet have pefection. (Sept., p. 28.) t

16 ( t is in the second aticle that the autho specifically tuns to vaious concepts in Sciptue which have to deal with the Chistian's self-image; and paticulaly with the concepts of the old and new man. His definitions too, we believe, ae less than adequate. He offes the following: Old and new man, it seems to me, ought not to be seen as aspects o sides o pats of the believe, which ae both still somehow pesent in him. Old and new man ae two diffeent ways of living--two diffeent lifestyles, if you will. (Oct., p.18.) t is not supising that Hoekema takes the same position as MacLeod and posits the position that the old man no longe exists fo the Chistian. But it is entiely out of keeping with the Sciptual data to define this old man and new man as being nothing moe than a Hlife-style f The wods themselves (old and new man) suggest fa moe--even apat fom what is said about them in the Sciptues. n teating the thee texts whee these tems appea, the autho develops his position. n connection with Rom. 6: 6 the autho aves that by means of the cucifixion of Chist ou "old, God-defying life-style was put to death with (Chist). This means that fo us who have been united with Chist in baptism (see vss. 3 and 4), this old life-style is no longe a valid option; we ae though with it." (Oct., p. 18.) Tuning to Ephesians 4: and Colossians 3: 9,10, noting as Donald MacLeod did, that the tenses ae aoists, Hoekema concludes that the putting off of the old way of living (synonymous. with the old man) and putting on a new way of living (synonymous with the new man) is a once-fa-all event which is neve epeated in the life of the Chistian. We ead: Ou self-image, theefoe, must be of a peson who has ejected the old way of living which is called the old man, and has adopted the new way of living which is called the man...we ae to look upon ouselves, theefoe not as patly old man and patly new man, but as new men in

17 Chist. (Oct.:) p. 18.) The est of the aticle we may athe quickly pass ove, mainly because it is not immediately elated to ou question. D. Hoekema wites concening the fact that, although the old man is dead foeve in the Chistian, this does not mean that he is feed fom sin. And he points out coectly that, although the Chcistian is still in the midst of the battle, the battle is caied on and fought liin the atmosphee of victoy, not of defeat. (Oct., P 19). Futhe, he biefly teats the concept "new ceation" o linew ceatue" as it appeas in Cointhians 5: 17 and tells us that this tem also suely should give to us a vey positive self-image. The concept Hlife of victoy" which is suggested in such passages as Romans 6: 14, Galatians 5: 16-25, Philippians 4: 13 and John 5: 4 all add to this same geneal theme. And, finally, the Sciptues teach a'ogessive tansfomation", i.e., a pogess in sanctification. But this wok of sanctification is, in the wods of the aticle, both the wok of God and of man. This pogessive enewal involves ou own esponsible activity. f wee to ask you who it is that bings ou holiness to its goal, you would pobably say, God. Yet Paul says that this is what we must do.... Yet, at the same time, this pogessive enewal is ultimately the wok of God within us. The same tansfomation which is called ou task in Romans 12: 2 is ascibed to God's Holy Spiit in Cointhians 3: 18. eoct., p. 20). Hee Hoekema and MacLeod shaply pat ways. MacLeod concludes fom his position that sanctification is the wok of God alone Who has taken it out of ou hands and Who pefoms this wok in iesistible gace. Fom the same position Hoekema aives at the conclusion that sanctification is the wok of man and God. This latte sounds suspiciously like some kind of synegism. And, while it is not the chief point of the aticle, Hoekema could, at least, have discussed the elation between God's wok and man's wok if he was at all inteested in avoiding the heesy of Aminianism

18 L t is evident theefoe, that a vey eal poblem aises hee. We shall have to postpone a discussion of the issue to a futue issue of the Jounal, fo ou space is filled. But the issue is an impotant one. t involves some key Sciptual concepts and exegesis of some impotant Sciptual passages. The question involves some fundamental theological concepts and has 1mplications fo the life of the believe in the midst of the wold. To these mattes we shall addess ouselves late, the Lod willing. -16-

19 . l AS TO THE DOCTRtNE OF HOLY SCRPTURE (S) --Pof. H. C. Hoeksema-- n Volume V, Numbe 2 of this Jounal, we began ou discussion of the oganic inspiation of Holy Sciptue. We gave ou attention, fist of all, to the subject of a so-called human facto and human element in Holy Sciptue. n this discussion we began by quoting the views of seveal Refomed theologians about this subject. We do well to emind ouselves in this connection that basically thee ae but two possible positions to take, namely: the position which holds that thee is such a human facto in Sciptue> and the position which denies the existence of such a human facto and maintains that Holy Sciptue is wholly divine, both in its content and in the manne of its poduction. As to he fome view, thee may be diffeences of degee. Thee may be those who wish to make the so-called human facto and human element in Holy Sciptue vey lage. And to the extent that they do so, they necessaily make the divine facto and the divine element in Holy Sciptue popotionately smalle. The esult, pactically speaking, is, of couse, that Holy Sciptue becomes moe and moe the Hod of man.....:: less and less the Wod of God. The esult, too, is necessaily that Holy Sciptue becomes moe and moe SUbject to citicism and contadiction. On the othe hand, thee ae those who, while they acknowledge the pesence of such a human facto and element in Holy Sciptue, stive to limit and to minimize the human as much as possible, and to maintain that Sciptue is the Wod of God. Thee ae some who, while they maintain the existence of such a human facto, nevetheless so emphasize the divine facto and ae so feaful of losing the tuth that Sciptue is the Wod of God that they vitually cance! out the eality of this human facto by a doctine of divine inspiation which so contols and oveules the human facto that it becomes null and void. Fom a cetain point of view, this is a fotunate inconsistency: fotunate, of couse, because by it they peseve fo themselves Sciptue as the Wod of God. Nevetheless, they ae guilty of an inconsistency. t

20 L : would be pope not to speak of any human facto whatsoeve. once they concede the existence of such a human facto, and theefoe of a human element in Holy Sciptue, as was done in the Jans sen contovesy (see Jounal, Vol. V, No. 2 pg. 25), they have conceded thei entie case fo the infallibility and authoity of Holy Sciptue in pinciple. n othe wods, men may diffe as to the elative size and significance of the human facto and human element in Sciptue, and they may diffe as to the degee to which this human facto plays a pat in the poduction of Holy Sciptue; but no matte what the degee, and no matte what the elative size and significance of the human facto may be, the pinciple is the same. Whethe the human facto be one pecent and the divine facto ninety-nine pecent, o whethe the human facto be fifty pecent and the divine facto fifty pecent, the theoy of a divine and a human facto in the composition of Sciptue in the natue of the case implies that the Bible is a joint poduct: the poduct of the combined effot of God and men. t implies that the human wites of Holy Sciptue ae in some sense co-authos with God. f this is not tue, then it no longe makes any sense to speak of a human facto in the poduction of Holy Sciptue. f, on the othe hand, it is tue, then it must necessaily follow that thee is also a human element in Sciptue itself, that is, in the content of Sciptue. Such a human element in the content of Sciptue is, of couse, the poduct of this human facto. And then, to the degee that one concedes a human facto and a human elment, he must also be pepaed to accept all the consequences, implications, of such a human facto and element. t is ou belief that the eadiness to concede some kind of human facto and human element in Holy Sciptue unde the banne of oganic inspiation has in the past led and is leading in the pesent, and will inevitably lead, to the inability to defend and to maintain the tuth of the absolute infallibility and the divine authoity of Holy Sciptue ove against those who maintin a citical attitude and position. n the fist place, we call attention to the fact that this is a matte of definition. The tem facto comes fom the Latin Fo

21 l : '' t facee, which means lito do, to make. i A facto, theefoe, is one who does something, one who makes something. To use the dictionay definition, a facto is Uone of the elements that contibute to poduce a esult a constituent." t is vey plain, theefoe, that when we speak of factos in connection with Holy Sciptue, we ae efeing to those elements who contibute to poduce the esult, the Bible. And if one maintains that thee is only a divine facto involved in Holy Sciptue, he mantains that only God contibutes to poduce that esult called the Bible. The Wod of God, theefoe, is the only constituent of that Bible. f, howeve, he speaks also of a human facto, this can mean but one thing, namely: that man, as well as God, contibutes to poduce the Bible, and theefoe, that the Bible is the wod of man as well as the Wod of God. By definition, theefoe, the view that thee is a human facto in Holy Sciptue necessaily involves a denial that the Bible is wholly and solely the Wod of God. We also call attention to the fact, in this connection, that the tem auctoes secundaii is not above epoach. Popely undestood, it may pehaps be used fo convenience' sake; and we do not mean to suggest by ou citicism that any and all who use this teminology have an incoect view of Holy Sciptue and ae guilty of heesy. Nevetheless, the dange of this teminology should be evident. f we maintain that God is the Pimay Autho of Holy Sciptue and that men ae the seconday authos, the suggestion that Sciptue is of dual authoship, o even of multiple authoship, can hadly be avoided. The attempt is made, of couse, to avoid the poblem of this teminology by employing the modifies pimay and seconday. The fact emains, howeve, that whethe the authos ae pimay o seconday, they ae nevetheless authos. And even if one makes the "pimay" vey pime, while he geatly minimizes the seconday, ' the idea of authoship and of coope tiv0 authoship is nevetheless implied in this teminology. f this stictue is kept clealy in view, the teminology can pehaps be employed in' onnection with a ight undestanding of oganic inspiation. But we stess again that in using such teminology the dange is by no means imaginay that one leaves the impession that Sciptue is of dual

22 t t l [ mn ) l \! authoship, and that, accodingly, Sciptue is of a dual chaacte and dual content as well. n effect, theefoe, one is on the same gound with this teminology as with that which speaks of a divine facto and a human facto, as well as of a divine element and a human element in Holy Sciptue. Moeove, if one wishes to maintain the existence of a human facto in Holy Sciptue in any eal sense, he must be pepaed to accept the implications. He must be pepaed, paticulaly, to accept the implication that Sciptue is chaacteized by all the defects of that which is puely human. Othewise the "human facto" has no eality. t cetainly makes no sense to speak of a "human facto'; which has exactly been depived of its eality, of its human chaacte, though the influence of a udivine facto" and divine inspiation. To take efuge in the latte idea is satisfactoy neithe to those who clamo to maintain a human element in the Bible no to those who wish to maintain that Sciptue is wholly divine and infallible. We epeat: one who wishes to maintain the existence of a human facto in Sciptue must maintain, fist of all, that that human facto is eal, and must not allow it to be depived of that eal human chaacte. But then, secondly, he must be pepaed to accept the implications of such a eal human facto. And then, thidly, the implication that Sciptue is chaacteized by all the defects of that which is puely human--human in the ealistic sense of the wod--is ines.capable. And if he accepts this inescapable implication, he has theeby lost the divine Wod of God. f he does not wish to accept this implication, then he must no longe hold to a so-called human facto in any eal sense. Fo as soon as one says "human," he must be pepaed to eckon with the fact, the actuality, of sin. Those two, "human l1 and "sinful,'; and theefoe "human" and "defective," ae insepaable. Fo we ae by natue dakness. We have, and can have, no knowledge of God and of the things petaining to God. But we love the lie. We know not the tuth, and we do not want the tuth. Fo we love dakness athe than light. And even when though divine gace we ae egeneated, and called out of dakness into His light, thee is nevetheless only a small beginning of the new

23 ".i fl'" i.m! :-:m F"'.. l (m'!l pm' i [ - obedience in us. f, theefoe, we say that thee is a human facto and element in Holy Sciptue, then we must also be pepaed to say that thee is something defective in Holy Sciptue. To this defective'if belong all unintentional untuths and all intentional lies to which we ae inclined by natue, o to which we ae always exposed. The speakes and the wites who appea in Holy Sciptue as witnesses of the divine Wod could, then, have head incoectly; in fact we may accept it as cetain that they did sometimes hea incoectly. t may be established as a cetainty that these witnesses appehended by no means all of that which God spoke coectly. That which they saw they saw mistakenly; and they also ecoded it and pesented it incoectly. Along with this goes the fact that they head o saw the Wod of God with thei own defective appeception, fequently the fuit of a vey defective development, of woe ustoms and life-situations. They saw o head that Wod of God with a consciousness full of incoect conceptions and peconceived ideas. And in the light of whateve of eo and incoect concepts was aleady pesent in thei consciousness, they intepeted that Wod of God fo themselves, and thus they also epoduced it in thei witings. As eal human beings, they could also have imaginatvey much, so that they thought that they head the Wod of God while they wee nevetheless nothing but the plaything of thei own enthusiasm and thei own ich and fied up imagination. This also belongs vey definitely to the human and defective. But even thus all is not said. They cetainly did not etain eveything coectly and accuately. Fo it is a well-known fact that a defective memoy belongs vey definitely to that which is human and weak. They fogot much. They distoted much. They exaggeated much. They minimized much. Thee is without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spiit--which pecisely exc"\ldes any human facto--no possible guaantee that John, fo example, in his Gospel coectly epoduces that which Jesus actually spoke, o that in the Book of Revelation he coectly epoduces fo us that which he saw. Hence, aleady though these defects of an unintentional chaacte and though these unintentional untuths o inaccuacies which ae peculia to the human wites of Sciptue along with all men, the

24 l..1 t mo (mj!l j pml i i i (m'l i mio of divine evelation would be so bent and so distoted and maed that it cetainly could not seve to eflect to us the image of the invisible God in Chist. Let us keep in mind that exactly this is the issue. Holy Sciptue--and this is a figue which is employed by Sciptue itself--seves as a mio. Though Sciptue we ae given "to see in a glass dakly." Now if a mio is to eflect my image coectly, then it is not only necessay that stand diectly befoe that mio; but it is also necessay that the mio is pefect. t must be flat; it must be without any beaks and flaws; it must be without spots and without distoting ipples. f that mio is not pefect) it will not coectly eflect my image. But this is much moe emphatically tue of the means wheeby God eveals Himself to us. We must emembe' that this is the whole significance and pupose of Holy Sciptue. The Wod of God, and that, too, pecisely though the powe of the wonde of gace, must beak though the dakness of ou sin and misey and death if it is to each us as God's Wod. But then those Sciptues, which constitute the mio in which the image of the invisible God of ou salvation in Chist is eflected, must be pefect. Othewise we shall be unable to behold that image of the invisible God in Chist. And even though these unintentional eos and untuths, and misepesentations and inaccuacies, which would be peculia to the human wites of Sciptue along with all men, that mio.. of divine evelation would cetainly be bent and distoted and, theefoe, untustwothy. But even thus all has not yet been said. f a eal human facto in the poduction of Holy Sciptue is conceded, then thee ae not only unintentional defects and flaws of heaing and seeing and memoy and pesentation and imagination which cling to Holy Sciptue; thee must also be intentional lies and delibeate misepesentations. Fo if the holiness of the holy wites consisted only in that they wee pesonally egeneated, and if they wee not pecisely though divine inspiation guaded against the inclination of thei own sinful natue, then that holiness in pinciple is nevetheless not a guaantee that they did not intentionally distot and do violence to the Wod of

25 t i i n pq i, God which was evealed to them. all else: who shall know it? Fo the heat is deceitful above The flesh stives against the spiit, also in the Chistian. He undestands in pinciple the things of the Spiit of God: and he has his delight in those things of the Spiit of God also. Nevetheless, he also fails to do that which he wills; and that which he wills not, that he does. This is tue of the Chistian also, and even especially, with espect to the Wod of God. s not the testimony of chuch histoy stong on this scoe? s it not tue that down though the ages, fo vaious easons and due to vaious causes, even the witten Wod of God fequently has been intentionally distoted in ode to maintain one's own view and in ode to defend and potect one's own life and in ode to justify one's own doings? These vey same sinful inclinations wee also chaacteistic, emembe, of a John, of a Paul, of a Moses, and of an saiah. And they must, then, have played a pat also in thei witing of the books of Holy Sciptue, so that thei wok is chaacteized by intentionally false pesentations, wong explanations; by a keeping back of some things and an adding of othe things; by distotion; by a softening of the Wod at this point and a shapening of the Wod at that point. And if all this is kept in mind, then thee emains nothing, cetainly, of the accuacy and tustwothiness of the mio in which God wills to eflect His image. And then it is not tue that in the Sciptues we see as in a glass dakly. Besides, it must not be fogotten that the things which ae evealed to us in Holy Sciptue ae not of the eath, eathy; but they ae heavenly, while we, even apat now fom "sin, ae of the eath, eathy. And even as the natual man does not undestand the things of the Spiit of God, so the eathly man with his eathly wisdom does not undestand the things which ae heavenly and fom above. Hee below we walk as in a valley which is suounded on evey side by high mountains ove which we can neve see. And besides, in that valley thee is dakness. By eason of sin and death, it is pitch black night. f we ae to have evelation, if we ae to eceive knowledge of things heavenly,!

26 ,l. il! :,, knowledge of that which lies beyond the mountains which suound us in this vale of teas, then He Who is able to come down fom heaven and yet to be in heaven, Who theefoe can speak of those heavenly things which He has head and seen, must speak to us. But He must also declae those heavenly things to us in eathly language. Fo heavenly language we cetainly do not undestand with ou eathly eas and eathly undestanding. Even that eathly language, howeve, cannot be the human facto which unites and coopeates with the divine facto in evelation. Also in ou own eathly language we would not be able to speak of heavenly things. Also the eathly foms in which ae declaed and evealed to us the heavenly things can only be fom God. Even the vey eathly language, and even the specific language which each of the human wites employed, whethe in the Old Testament o in the New, can only be fom God. Only the God of ou salvation in Jesus Chist knows how to make known to us eathly ceatues the heavenly things, knows the pecise language and the pecise foms which ae suitable to make known to us those heavenly things. And theefoe, too, the human wites did not by any means always undestand the things of which they spoke; and not infequently that which they spoke went fa beyond thei own consciousness and thei own compehension. Thee is much moe that can be said about this entie subject of an alleged human facto. One might call attention to the fact that the human wites of Holy Sciptue themselves ecede entiely into the backgound as fa as the content of Sciptue is concened: so much so that the vey identity of many of them is not even known. One might also call attention to the fact that the vey distinction between a human facto and a divine facto which is sometimes said to be an aspect of oganic inspiation is, afte all, contay to the vey idea of oganic inspiation, and is itself a moe mechanistic view of Sciptue than is the view which denies that thee ae two factos and which insists that Holy Sciptue is altogethe divine. One might call attention, too, to the fact that this vey admission of the existence of a human facto alongside a divine facto has epeatedly involved -24-

27 i! \ l i, i i, ' \' l )! F",, its adheents in poblems, insoluble poblems, with espect to the authoity and infallibility of the Sciptues, and has led inevitably to a de-emphasizing and a compomising of the latte. One might also call att0ntion to the fact that this admission of a human facto afte all does not enhance one's view of Sciptue. ndeed, it is vey evident that men spake and men wote and men taught and men sang and men pophesied and men ecoded facts and events, and that, too, with all thei individual peculiaities and chaactes, thei diffeences in talents, thei vaiety of time and place, of histoy and cicumstances. These ae simply facts; and the denial of a human facto does not imply the denial of these facts whatsoeve. But when we speak even of these phenomena as a human facto, we ae missing something impotant. t is exactly when we see that all these facets of Sciptue ae included, so to speak, in the "divine facto, H the only facto in Holy Sciptue, that they come in the embace of the wonde of infallible inspiation in such a way that ilthis Wod of God was not sent, no deliveed by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they wee moved by the Holy Ghost,ti (Belgic Confession, At. 3) that we can behold something of the manifold iches of that wonde of inspiation. But this is missed when we posit a human facto next to the divine. One might also call attention to the fact that neve does Sciptue itself posit such an alleged human facto anywhee. Of the two classic passages on inspiation in the New Testament, one-- Timothy 3: 16--does not mention men at all, but speaks of the inspiation of the Sciptues themselves athe than of men; and the othe-- Pete 1: exactly stesses that pophecy came not in old time by the will of man." We conclude this pat of ou discussion, theefoe, by stessing that this entie theoy of a human facto and human element is to be ejected, and that we must adhee stictly to the tuth that Sciptue, the Wod of God witten, is wholly divine. Thee is but one "facto" in its poduction: God in Chist. And thee is but one t:elementll in its content: the Wod, the evelation, of the God of ou salvation in Jesus Chist. Along these same lines we must view the matte of the alleged -25-